000			01952cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS66453
008			030304n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121491
100			_aMurdoch, S.
245			_aNo escaping clarity
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0302) 11 January 2003, 102(1)
520			_aDiscusses recent cases concerning Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 notice requirements. In "St Ermin's Property Co v Tingay" (Chd Abs66081), agreeing with an earlier judgment "Viscount Chelsea and another v Hirshorn" (County Court Abs58748) it was decided that the need for a s42 notice to be signed personally by the tenant was inescapable and in this case the notice signed by the tenant's son under a power of attorney was invalid. In "Wellcome Trust Ltd v Bellhurst Ltd" (CA [2002] 32 EG 90) the CA was asked to rule on the validity of a s42 notice served by the respondent (B) which held the relevant underlease on trust for the occupier. The notice had not been served on a particular tenant nor on the intermediate landlord. The tenant it was claimed, although a party to the underlease, was not a third party for the purposes of the Act. CA agreed that the statute did not cover a third party who has no rights and obligations under the law. Further, where Sched 11 para 2 of the 1993 Act applies, the validity of the notice is not affected.
590			_aABS
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S41
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 SCHED 11 PARA 4
650			_aST ERMINS PROPERTY CO V TINGAY
650			_aWELLCOME TRUST LTD V BELLHURST LTD
650			_aVISCOUNT CHELSEA AND ANOTHER V HIRSHORN
650			_aENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT 1985 S3(2)
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c72201 _d72201